On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 16:02:06 +
Kurt Lieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 07:59:14AM -0500 or thereabouts, Alec Warner
> wrote:
> > I believe the Infrastructure team also doesn't want to change the
> > layout, but I'll leave it up to them to comment on their own
> > policy
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 13:45:01 -0500,
Daniel Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> portage will need to know that the location, on the distfiles
> mirrors, of cronolog, is now the equivilent of
> mirror://gentoo/${firstchar}
And what about the "local" mirror type, that one can define in
/etc/portage/m
On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 12:36:22PM -0500, Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Taking the earlier comment ( changing files only on the mirrors ) there
> are no portage changes that are technically required. However, you'd
> need to change about 1 ( random number I pulled out of my ass, b
Jan Kundrát wrote:
>Alin Nastac wrote:
>
>
>>this has been discussed before.
>>summary: tarballs could be used by more than one package. this way
>>you'll manage to increase the disk space demands for our mirrors.
>>
>>
>
>This one is about sorting by first letter of filename. It won't solve
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 19:54:28 + "Stuart Herbert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On 3/6/06, Alin Nastac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > this has been discussed before.
| > summary: tarballs could be used by more than one package. this way
| > you'll manage to increase the disk space demands for our m
Michael Renner wrote:
> Introducing an additional directory hierarchy should fix this, and is
> the common solution for this problem for various projects, be it debian
> [1], cpan [2], slackware [3], etc.
>
>
> One migration scenario for a better future:
>
> Create subdirectories named after th
On 3/6/06, Alin Nastac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> this has been discussed before.
> summary: tarballs could be used by more than one package. this way
> you'll manage to increase the disk space demands for our mirrors.
And you can't hard-link the files into multiple directories because ...?
Bes
Alin Nastac wrote:
> this has been discussed before.
> summary: tarballs could be used by more than one package. this way
> you'll manage to increase the disk space demands for our mirrors.
This one is about sorting by first letter of filename. It won't solve
multiple different files with same fil
Stuart Herbert wrote:
>Why not have the directory structure follow the package category
>structure? E.g. the distfiles for package foo/bar goes into the
>directory ${MIRROR_ROOT}/foo/bar?
>
>This should be easy enough to support in Portage, and if applied to
>the /usr/portage/distfiles directory
Hi,
On 3/6/06, Michael Renner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as suggested by Mike in http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123335,
> here's my proposal for changing the layout of the distfiles tree:
> Introducing an additional directory hierarchy should fix this, and is
> the common solutio
Simon Stelling wrote:
Daniel Ostrow wrote:
Hrm, /me thinks you are missing something there, almost the entire
tree doesn't explicitly state the mirror://gentoo SRC_URI, portage
handles that automatically. That being the case portage would have
change so that the automatic lookup was mirror:
On Monday 06 March 2006 13:18, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Daniel Ostrow wrote:
> > Hrm, /me thinks you are missing something there, almost the entire tree
> > doesn't explicitly state the mirror://gentoo SRC_URI, portage handles
> > that automatically. That being the case portage would have change so
Simon Stelling wrote:
> Alec Warner wrote:
>
>> Taking the earlier comment ( changing files only on the mirrors )
>> there are no portage changes that are technically required. However,
>> you'd need to change about 1 ( random number I pulled out of my
>> ass, but there are many affected ) SR
Daniel Ostrow wrote:
Hrm, /me thinks you are missing something there, almost the entire tree
doesn't explicitly state the mirror://gentoo SRC_URI, portage handles that
automatically. That being the case portage would have change so that the
automatic lookup was mirror://gentoo/${firstchar}/. So
On Monday 06 March 2006 12:36, Alec Warner wrote:
> Michael Renner wrote:
> > Kurt Lieber wrote:
> >> If we can come up with a seamless, painless transition process, great,
> >> let's make it happen.
> >
> > From the _MIRROR_-side using hardlinks should be fine enough, we'd just
> > have to ensure
Alec Warner wrote:
Taking the earlier comment ( changing files only on the mirrors ) there
are no portage changes that are technically required. However, you'd
need to change about 1 ( random number I pulled out of my ass, but
there are many affected ) SRC_URI's to point to the new format,
Michael Renner wrote:
Kurt Lieber wrote:
If we can come up with a seamless, painless transition process, great,
let's make it happen.
From the _MIRROR_-side using hardlinks should be fine enough, we'd just
have to ensure that every mirror uses -H (preserve hardlinks). And for
the mirror
Kurt Lieber wrote:
If we can come up with a seamless, painless transition process, great,
let's make it happen.
From the _MIRROR_-side using hardlinks should be fine enough, we'd just
have to ensure that every mirror uses -H (preserve hardlinks). And for
the mirrors not using -H this will ju
Alec Warner wrote:
Is this plan for server side only distfiles, or do you want
/usr/portage/distfiles/{a-z}/ on the local system as well.
Changing the layout on the server suffices, no need to fiddle around
with more scripts than necessary ;).
Is there any needed performance benefit out of
On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 07:59:14AM -0500 or thereabouts, Alec Warner wrote:
> I believe the Infrastructure team also doesn't want to change the
> layout, but I'll leave it up to them to comment on their own policy ;)
We'd love to change the layout to something similar to what Michael
proposed. It
Michael Renner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as suggested by Mike in http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123335,
> here's my proposal for changing the layout of the distfiles tree:
> Introducing an additional directory hierarchy should fix this, and is
> the common solution for this problem for various pro
Hi,
as suggested by Mike in http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123335,
here's my proposal for changing the layout of the distfiles tree:
This is the current state:
mirror:/storage/gentoo/data/source/distfiles# ls | wc -l
22543
mirror:/storage/gentoo/data/source/distfiles# ls -l ../ | gre
22 matches
Mail list logo
